[ShepherdsDog]

I remember writing a paper in university about who I thought were the unsung heroes of history, or those who were unfairly villified. The two historical figures I dealt with with primarily were Vlad Tepes and King John. Both men received unfair press and are considered by most as some of history's biggest villians.

Vlad, I proposed was a man of his times and was no more vicious than he needed to be to maintain his hold on power, or his contemporaries for that matter. His tactics, stalled the Turks long enough for other Christian nations, to be able to muster their forces and stop the turks at Vienna. This was also a time shortly after the fall of Constantinople, one of Christendom's greatest cities and the centre of Orthodox Christianity, of which he was a devout practioner.

His treatment of Muslims was no less blood thirsty than Lion Heart, who is remembered as a hero. If anything, the Western Crusaders were the ones responsible for the Ottoman occupation of Europe when they paused on their road trip and sacked Constantinople. Up until that time the Byzantines were the ones holding the Turks at bay.

German traders, who tried to undermine his authority and suffered for doing so, were some of his biggest detractors and spread rumours and exaggerations of his cruelty and violence. In a time that most Christians thought were the end times, when lawlessness was the general rule in the Balklans, Vlad was able to establish an island of real stability in a sea of chaos.

He was a man and a product of his times. To Romanians he was their Lion Heart, as is evidenced by his being made a saint by the Romanian Orthodox Church.

I'll try and be shorter with John. His problem was that he grew up in the shadow of his brother Richard. Richard's business trips were the reason that taxes were raised on the populace. John taxed the nobles who passed the tax on to the common serfs and freemen, rather than pay from their own coffers. The Magna Carta, which was imposed on John after Richard finally died in another one of his wars, was never intended to bring freedom to the common man. Its sole purpose was to undermine central authority and allow the nobles to do as they pleased. John fed starving commoners from his own coffers, he travelled through out his kingdom, holding impromptu courts to dispense justice for the common people, as well. Under his rule the common people were freed from the taxes resultant from Richard's holy wars and ransoms. Richard was a failure as an administrator and a ruler. By not paying attention to domestic affairs England eventually lost most Angevin possessions in France and a large source of revenue.

I also dealt with Richard III, who got his bad rap from Shakespeare who was sucking up to a Tudor queen. I think I got an A- in the end but there was a little more to it than the summary I have given. My prof was a German and didn't think that Vlad was given unfair press by his antecedents, but did agree that we can't use today's standards to judge people who lived hundreds of years ago.

[Tman1]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

German traders, who tried to undermine his authority and suffered for doing so, were some of his biggest detractors and spread rumours and exaggerations of his cruelty and violence. In a time that most Christians thought were the end times, when lawlessness was the general rule in the Balklans, Vlad was able to establish an island of real stability in a sea of chaos.

You do realize there is substantial evidence pertaining to his inherent title of "Vlad the Impaler" right? There is no doubt exaggerations of some cases but it's generally believed that he learned impaling techniques from the Turks during his captivity. While most people ignore his successive campaigns with the Turks but he also was cruel to his own people. Unfair reputation? I don't think so.

Quote:

He was a man and a product of his times. To Romanians he was their Lion Heart, as is evidenced by his being made a saint by the Romanian Orthodox Church.

I can't find any evidence anywhere indicating Vlad Tepes as being a saint except in the Satanic community. Why would the Orthodox Church look upon Vlad who, by the way, adopted Catholicism during captivity at a time when the two churches were indubitably separated because our very own crusaders contributed to Byzantine downfall, in a favourable way?

Quote:

His problem was that he grew up in the shadow of his brother Richard.

John also had four other brothers, technically half-brother if you count legitimacy, and he was considered the favourite of Henry II. Richard I and the other sons revolted against their father, thats a shadow I think he would have wanted to grow up under.

Quote:

The Magna Carta, which was imposed on John after Richard finally died in another one of his wars, was never intended to bring freedom to the common man.

Richard I died in 1199, well before the imposition of the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was supposed to limit the kings powers to a degree and give more rights to the nobles.

Quote:

Richard was a failure as an administrator and a ruler. By not paying attention to domestic affairs England eventually lost most Angevin possessions in France and a large source of revenue.

Uhh no. King John lost at the Battle of Bouvines and lost his fathers territories, a lot of it . Many English nobles had lands there and thus a primary reason why he was so hated. You are right that Richard was a failed administrator and ruler because he spent most of his time out of England.

I don't agree with your assesment of Vlads reign and it almost seems as if you are trying to "justify" his actions because of his subsequent victories against the Turks. Vlad Tepe has a bad reputation because he fully deserves the bad rap. You are right that most likely nobody cares what Vlad did outside of his little "play" games but he did give Western armies time to defeat the Turks and this is second only to Charles Martels victory at the Battle of Tours and Leo III's victory over the Arabs in 737.

I agree that John did get the bad rap compared to Richard I but in my mind he did something really stupid by losing all of that land his father had before him and the nobles with connections to the French King Philip didn't like that very much but we thank John for many of the institutions we enjoy today and England was probably saved in some way instead of fighting in a pool of blood like the French Revolution.

[ShepherdsDog]

Quote:

You do realize there is substantial evidence pertaining to his inherent title of "Vlad the Impaler" right? There is no doubt exaggerations of some cases but it's generally believed that he learned impaling techniques from the Turks during his captivity. While most people ignore his successive campaigns with the Turks but he also was cruel to his own people. Unfair reputation? I don't think so.

I'm quite aware of the tales of his cruelty towards his enemies and those who tried to undermine his authority. However his history was largely written by those who were his enemies, much like Richard III.

Quote:

Historical Evidence

In evaluating the accounts of Vlad Dracula it is important to realize that much of the information comes from sources that may not be entirely accurate. With each of the three main sources there is reason to believe that the information provided may be influenced by local, mainly political, prejudices. The three main sources are as follows: (1) Pamphlets published in Germany shortly after Vlad’s death, (2) pamphlets published in Russia shortly after the German pamphlets, and (3) Romanian oral tradition.

German Pamphlets
At the time of Vlad Dracula’s death Matthias Corvinus of Hungary was seeking to bolster his own reputation in the Holy Roman Empire and may have intended the early pamphlets as justification of his less than vigorous support of his vassal. It must also be remembered that German merchants were often the victims of Vlad Dracula’s cruelty. The pamphlets thus painted Vlad Dracula as an inhuman monster who terrorized the land and butchered innocents with sadistic glee.

The pamphlets were also a form of mass entertainment in a society where the printing press was just coming into widespread use. The pamphlets were reprinted numerous times over the thirty or so years following Vlad’s death—strong proof of their popularity

However most Romanians remember Vlad in a different light.

Quote:

Vlad Dracula is remembered as a just prince who defended his people from foreigners, whether those foreigners were Turkish invaders or German merchants. He is also remembered as a champion of the common man against the oppression of the boyars. A central part of the verbal tradition is Vlad’s insistence on honesty in his effort to eliminate crime and immoral behavior from the region. However, despite the more positive interpretation of his life, Vlad Dracula is still remembered as an exceptionally cruel and often capricious ruler.

Quote:

Why would the Orthodox Church look upon Vlad who, by the way, adopted Catholicism during captivity

He 'converted' to Catholicism during his captivity to Mattias Corvinus, his Hungarian leige lord. This enabled him to gain his freedom, support from Hungary and ultimately regain his throne. He was also interred in Snagov, hardly the resting place of one who the Orthodox Church considered a heretic.

Quote:

I don't agree with your assesment of Vlads reign and it almost seems as if you are trying to "justify" his actions because of his subsequent victories against the Turks. Vlad Tepe has a bad reputation because he fully deserves the bad rap

No, not justify, merely put them into context. By modern standards, they were horrific, but by the standards of his time they were merely extreme, but not unusual. He was a crusader and the acts that he committed were no crueler than the acts that other crusaders committed. But for some bad press, Vlad is remembered as a villian while other great crusaders are remembered as heroes, even after perpetrating even more heinous acts against fellow Christians, jews and Muslims, both combatant and non combatant.

[ShepherdsDog]

That was a mistake of mine. I'm going from something I wrote almost 18 yrs ago. I checked closer and find that he was interred in Snagov and he was 'revered ' as a saint and savior by many Romanians and the Romanian Orthodox Church, rather than actually being one(an official saint). Prof didn't critcize this so why should I worry now. Now you can go to bed happy.

[ShepherdsDog]

I've just had a major belief shattered by you cruel bastards. I have to go console myself with a beer, maitai and a sunburn. I hope you're all happy and your mattress has lumps.

[Virgil]

Quote:

...merely extreme...

?

[xerxes]

One person I always think has gotten a bad rap in history is Neville Chamberlain. I mean, you look up appeasement in the dictionary, and there's his face.

But really, what was he supoosed to do in 1938? Was England ready to fight a war then? Apart from Germany, was anyone? Hardly.

Another thing is that I think a lot of people fail to realise just how deep an impact WW1 had on the collective psyche of England. No one wanted another Passchendale or Somme. And if it took some caving to maintain peace, so be it.

It's so easy to criticise Chamberlain because we all know how the story ends. Of course he made the wrong choice, but let's not forget that at the time more people around the world were much more ready to leave a guy like Hitler in power than Stalin.

[Mustang1]

In response to Xerxes,

Chamberlain ------- history is just starting (last couple of decades) to reassess his place within the annals of western civilizations. Was he naïve, gullible or did he truthfully believe, through his actions, that he was delivering, “peace in our time”?


Some history for consideration:

1. Appeasement was the prevailing ideology – Great Britain, United States, France did not want to enter into hostilities like WWI again. Versailles, Locarno system, Washington Conference were all valid attempts to realign the Western world to one based on peace initiatives, like arms reduction or defensive alignments. Appeasement strategy was sort of an outgrowth of this movement – it did not directly emerge because of these strategies, it was more of a logical next step.

Put simply, its converts sought to appease or act in a conciliatory manner to aggressive mannerisms of totalitarian regimes – like Hitler’s. If the fascist’s geopolitical demands were initially met, than possibly total war could be averted. Does Chamberlain’s adherence to Appeasement dogmas make him naïve? Maybe from a political standpoint. There were dissenters, like Churchill, that argued that appeasement was a sure-fire way to war, but could Chamberlain have done anything else at Munich? History might offer some answers.

2. Great Britain was not prepared for war in the 1930s – Britain was not ready – economically, militarily or socially – to enter into another global conflict (despite the moral implications) so soon after the Great War. Moreover, British military chiefs advised the Prime Minister that due to Britain’s inability to meet Germany militarism in kind, he had to buy time. He accomplished that, but at the price of a truncated Czechoslovakia – this lapse in moral judgment, at the expense of the diplomatic victory, hurt Chamberlain’s historical character.

3. The Trust Factor – did Chamberlain trust Hitler? Yes and No. He believed that his appeasement strategies had averted war. So did many of his contemporaries. History proved them all wrong. Keep in mind that initially many people did, at the very least, sympathize with the plight of the Versailles-humiliated German people. Nationalism was still a popular ideology among Europeans, and displaced cultures – those outside their national borders – were often seen in a sympathetic light. Munich, therefore, played into this sentiment. Chamberlain, it would seem, was a product of his own historical milieu – his actions were not considered out of the ordinary (it doesn’t mean they were entirely accepted or applauded), but they were sincere.


How should history evaluate Chamberlain? In my opinion, he made a mistake - one that failed to recognize Hitler’s insatiable desire for European conquest, but his nation’s inability to wage successful war at that particular time (also lacking significant Allies) rendered his actions prudent.

[themasta]

What about Hitler? He wasn't evil, just misunderstood and unable to relate in certain social situations. Really, he was just so very shy...

[EyeBrock]

Mustang1 wrote:

2. Great Britain was not prepared for war in the 1930s – Britain was not ready – economically, militarily or socially – to enter into another global conflict (despite the moral implications) so soon after the Great War. Moreover, British military chiefs advised the Prime Minister that due to Britain’s inability to meet Germany militarism in kind, he had to buy time. He accomplished that, but at the price of a truncated Czechoslovakia – this lapse in moral judgment, at the expense of the diplomatic victory, hurt Chamberlain’s historical character.

Mmm................

I agree with some of what you say Mustang, but you are probably aware that some historians think that if the UK and France would have acted in the early 1930’s, prior to the Nazi re-arming projects, Hitler could have been neutralised.
Many believe that if we (the UK and France) had acted decisively in 1936 when Germans waltzed into the Rhineland, or even earlier with the Saar debacle, he may have been booted from office by the German people or ignited a revolt in the Wehrmacht and ended the Nazi dreams of world domination before millions died.

I’m in that category that believes Neville and the appeasement than ran rampant throughout France and the UK was a major factor in giving Hitler the encouragement to go and do his bidding in pre WW2 Europe.
I believe if a more hawkish PM had been in power at that time and the Brits and French had got together to stop the Nazi’s (which they were well capable of doing prior to 1937 when the arms race tipped in favour of Germany) things would have been different.

I therefore think that Neville is rightly reviled and totally deserves his bad rap. He lacked leadership and a strategic vision, but he wasn’t alone. The lone voice in the wilderness was the only man ( I believe) who’s balls were big enough to do the job and his time was some way off yet.

[Mustang1]

Actually, most modern scholarship accesses Chamberlain’s manoeuvres within his unique historical milieu (as good history demands). With that in mind (please read my #2 regarding 1930s diplomatic/political prevailing mindsets) Chamberlain is viewed as geo- politically short-sighted, diplomatically arrogant and possibly naive but arguably pragmatic as there is little indication that he could have convinced his populace (especially after the horrors of the Great War – there is a large body of work devoted to this very topic and the economic atmosphere – even in 1938 Britain was still economically worried about the prospects of financing another war in the 20th century), his cabinet (according to Eden, elder politicians saw little need to rearm – see Colvin for more on cabinet)or other nations (you’ll need to counter the “Maginot mentality” of France and its inability to equip itself for modern war to explain how they would act “desively” in 1936) that full-scale war was the best solution (in light of contemporary realities that still lay un-addressed) in the mid 1930s.

EyeBrock wrote:

Many believe that if we (the UK and France) had acted decisively in 1936 when Germans waltzed into the Rhineland, or even earlier with the Saar debacle, he may have been booted from office by the German people or ignited a revolt in the Wehrmacht and ended the Nazi dreams of world domination before millions died.

Actually, good sound history would’ve concluded that social, military and economic realities of the contemporary period made that highly unlikely and puts that kind of retrospective conclusion in an academically poor light.

Quote:

“I’m in that category that believes Neville and the appeasement than ran rampant throughout France and the UK was a major factor in giving Hitler the encouragement to go and do his bidding in pre WW2 Europe”

And how does that address the prevailing diplomatic mindset of the day that saw Western nations eschew aggressive actions? The Western democracies – the “satisfied” powers as opposed to the “revisionist” states – were bent on an insistence of peace regardless of consequences (I’ve already addressed this previously and whether you or I agree with it’s tenets or not is immaterial – it’s history see Palmer, Colton or Stokesbury). The West wasn’t committed to war in 1935, 1936, but Munich changed things – still, it took Hitler’s Bohemia-Moravia march, coupled with the later seizure of Memel and Danzig demands to wake England and France out of their appeasement sleep.

Quote:

“I believe if a more hawkish PM had been in power at that time and the Brits and French had got together to stop the Nazi’s (which they were well capable of doing prior to 1937 when the arms race tipped in favour of Germany) things would have been different.”

That’s a personal assertion and one based on retrospection. While it’s a valid opinion, it’s not necessarily history.

Quote:

“I therefore think that Neville is rightly reviled and totally deserves his bad rap. He lacked leadership and a strategic vision, but he wasn’t alone. The lone voice in the wilderness was the only man ( I believe) who’s balls were big enough to do the job and his time was some way off yet.”

I’m not a huge fan of Chamberlain either – he was an egotistical, contentious figure – but history shouldn’t rest on one’s personal tastes. The fact was that his contemporary reality rebuffed alternative actions and the prevailing social, political, military and economic conditions placed him in a difficult situation – that’s history.

[EyeBrock]

Mustang1 wrote:

Actually, most modern scholarship accesses Chamberlain’s manoeuvres within his unique historical milieu (as good history demands). With that in mind (please read my #2 regarding 1930s diplomatic/political prevailing mindsets) Chamberlain is viewed as geo- politically short-sighted, diplomatically arrogant and possibly naive but arguably pragmatic as there is little indication that he could have convinced his populace (especially after the horrors of the Great War – there is a large body of work devoted to this very topic and the economic atmosphere – even in 1938 Britain was still economically worried about the prospects of financing another war in the 20th century), his cabinet (according to Eden, elder politicians saw little need to rearm – see Colvin for more on cabinet)or other nations (you’ll need to counter the “Maginot mentality” of France and its inability to equip itself for modern war to explain how they would act “desively” in 1936) that full-scale war was the best solution (in light of contemporary realities that still lay un-addressed) in the mid 1930s.

EyeBrock wrote:

Many believe that if we (the UK and France) had acted decisively in 1936 when Germans waltzed into the Rhineland, or even earlier with the Saar debacle, he may have been booted from office by the German people or ignited a revolt in the Wehrmacht and ended the Nazi dreams of world domination before millions died.

Actually, good sound history would’ve concluded that social, military and economic realities of the contemporary period made that highly unlikely and puts that kind of retrospective conclusion in an academically poor light.

Quote:

“I’m in that category that believes Neville and the appeasement than ran rampant throughout France and the UK was a major factor in giving Hitler the encouragement to go and do his bidding in pre WW2 Europe”

And how does that address the prevailing diplomatic mindset of the day that saw Western nations eschew aggressive actions? The Western democracies – the “satisfied” powers as opposed to the “revisionist” states – were bent on an insistence of peace regardless of consequences (I’ve already addressed this previously and whether you or I agree with it’s tenets or not is immaterial – it’s history see Palmer, Colton or Stokesbury). The West wasn’t committed to war in 1935, 1936, but Munich changed things – still, it took Hitler’s Bohemia-Moravia march, coupled with the later seizure of Memel and Danzig demands to wake England and France out of their appeasement sleep.

Quote:

“I believe if a more hawkish PM had been in power at that time and the Brits and French had got together to stop the Nazi’s (which they were well capable of doing prior to 1937 when the arms race tipped in favour of Germany) things would have been different.”

That’s a personal assertion and one based on retrospection. While it’s a valid opinion, it’s not necessarily history.

Quote:

“I therefore think that Neville is rightly reviled and totally deserves his bad rap. He lacked leadership and a strategic vision, but he wasn’t alone. The lone voice in the wilderness was the only man ( I believe) who’s balls were big enough to do the job and his time was some way off yet.”

I’m not a huge fan of Chamberlain either – he was an egotistical, contentious figure – but history shouldn’t rest on one’s personal tastes. The fact was that his contemporary reality rebuffed alternative actions and the prevailing social, political, military and economic conditions placed him in a difficult situation – that’s history.

As usual I find my self agreeing with you.
I did put a fair bit of my opinion (reasonably well read that it is!) in that but I have to agree with your more academic assessment.

Neville was still a knobhead though!

[Mustang1]

EyeBrock wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

Actually, most modern scholarship accesses Chamberlain’s manoeuvres within his unique historical milieu (as good history demands). With that in mind (please read my #2 regarding 1930s diplomatic/political prevailing mindsets) Chamberlain is viewed as geo- politically short-sighted, diplomatically arrogant and possibly naive but arguably pragmatic as there is little indication that he could have convinced his populace (especially after the horrors of the Great War – there is a large body of work devoted to this very topic and the economic atmosphere – even in 1938 Britain was still economically worried about the prospects of financing another war in the 20th century), his cabinet (according to Eden, elder politicians saw little need to rearm – see Colvin for more on cabinet)or other nations (you’ll need to counter the “Maginot mentality” of France and its inability to equip itself for modern war to explain how they would act “desively” in 1936) that full-scale war was the best solution (in light of contemporary realities that still lay un-addressed) in the mid 1930s.

EyeBrock wrote:

Many believe that if we (the UK and France) had acted decisively in 1936 when Germans waltzed into the Rhineland, or even earlier with the Saar debacle, he may have been booted from office by the German people or ignited a revolt in the Wehrmacht and ended the Nazi dreams of world domination before millions died.

Actually, good sound history would’ve concluded that social, military and economic realities of the contemporary period made that highly unlikely and puts that kind of retrospective conclusion in an academically poor light.

Quote:

“I’m in that category that believes Neville and the appeasement than ran rampant throughout France and the UK was a major factor in giving Hitler the encouragement to go and do his bidding in pre WW2 Europe”

And how does that address the prevailing diplomatic mindset of the day that saw Western nations eschew aggressive actions? The Western democracies – the “satisfied” powers as opposed to the “revisionist” states – were bent on an insistence of peace regardless of consequences (I’ve already addressed this previously and whether you or I agree with it’s tenets or not is immaterial – it’s history see Palmer, Colton or Stokesbury). The West wasn’t committed to war in 1935, 1936, but Munich changed things – still, it took Hitler’s Bohemia-Moravia march, coupled with the later seizure of Memel and Danzig demands to wake England and France out of their appeasement sleep.

Quote:

“I believe if a more hawkish PM had been in power at that time and the Brits and French had got together to stop the Nazi’s (which they were well capable of doing prior to 1937 when the arms race tipped in favour of Germany) things would have been different.”

That’s a personal assertion and one based on retrospection. While it’s a valid opinion, it’s not necessarily history.

Quote:

“I therefore think that Neville is rightly reviled and totally deserves his bad rap. He lacked leadership and a strategic vision, but he wasn’t alone. The lone voice in the wilderness was the only man ( I believe) who’s balls were big enough to do the job and his time was some way off yet.”

I’m not a huge fan of Chamberlain either – he was an egotistical, contentious figure – but history shouldn’t rest on one’s personal tastes. The fact was that his contemporary reality rebuffed alternative actions and the prevailing social, political, military and economic conditions placed him in a difficult situation – that’s history.

As usual I find my self agreeing with you.
I did put a fair bit of my opinion (reasonably well read that it is!) in that but I have to agree with your more academic assessment.

Neville was still a knobhead though!

Hey,

I do agree with your personal assessment (I’m a huge admirer of Churchill and I don’t particularly find Chamberlain’s egotism or short-sightedness commendable) and I also personally find Munich to be a morally deplorable act, but sometimes I must begrudgingly respect the historical reality of some instances.

I sometimes find Chamberlain’s reputation akin to a political contemporary of his: Canadian R.B. Bennett. Both were faced with momentous Herculean challenges – ones that were historically massive – and while both tried to navigate these previously uncharted waters with good intentions, both were unsuccessful and both were vilified by their contemporaries and some historians in the immediate preceding years. While I don’t share the same personal disdain for Bennett as Chamberlain (Bennett actually tried to personally intervene in the economic hardships of many Canadians) I do feel that both may need some revaluation (Bennett is currently) in light of their unique circumstances.

m1.

[EyeBrock]

Mustang1 wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

Actually, most modern scholarship accesses Chamberlain’s manoeuvres within his unique historical milieu (as good history demands). With that in mind (please read my #2 regarding 1930s diplomatic/political prevailing mindsets) Chamberlain is viewed as geo- politically short-sighted, diplomatically arrogant and possibly naive but arguably pragmatic as there is little indication that he could have convinced his populace (especially after the horrors of the Great War – there is a large body of work devoted to this very topic and the economic atmosphere – even in 1938 Britain was still economically worried about the prospects of financing another war in the 20th century), his cabinet (according to Eden, elder politicians saw little need to rearm – see Colvin for more on cabinet)or other nations (you’ll need to counter the “Maginot mentality” of France and its inability to equip itself for modern war to explain how they would act “desively” in 1936) that full-scale war was the best solution (in light of contemporary realities that still lay un-addressed) in the mid 1930s.

EyeBrock wrote:

Many believe that if we (the UK and France) had acted decisively in 1936 when Germans waltzed into the Rhineland, or even earlier with the Saar debacle, he may have been booted from office by the German people or ignited a revolt in the Wehrmacht and ended the Nazi dreams of world domination before millions died.

Actually, good sound history would’ve concluded that social, military and economic realities of the contemporary period made that highly unlikely and puts that kind of retrospective conclusion in an academically poor light.

Quote:

“I’m in that category that believes Neville and the appeasement than ran rampant throughout France and the UK was a major factor in giving Hitler the encouragement to go and do his bidding in pre WW2 Europe”

And how does that address the prevailing diplomatic mindset of the day that saw Western nations eschew aggressive actions? The Western democracies – the “satisfied” powers as opposed to the “revisionist” states – were bent on an insistence of peace regardless of consequences (I’ve already addressed this previously and whether you or I agree with it’s tenets or not is immaterial – it’s history see Palmer, Colton or Stokesbury). The West wasn’t committed to war in 1935, 1936, but Munich changed things – still, it took Hitler’s Bohemia-Moravia march, coupled with the later seizure of Memel and Danzig demands to wake England and France out of their appeasement sleep.

Quote:

“I believe if a more hawkish PM had been in power at that time and the Brits and French had got together to stop the Nazi’s (which they were well capable of doing prior to 1937 when the arms race tipped in favour of Germany) things would have been different.”

That’s a personal assertion and one based on retrospection. While it’s a valid opinion, it’s not necessarily history.

Quote:

“I therefore think that Neville is rightly reviled and totally deserves his bad rap. He lacked leadership and a strategic vision, but he wasn’t alone. The lone voice in the wilderness was the only man ( I believe) who’s balls were big enough to do the job and his time was some way off yet.”

I’m not a huge fan of Chamberlain either – he was an egotistical, contentious figure – but history shouldn’t rest on one’s personal tastes. The fact was that his contemporary reality rebuffed alternative actions and the prevailing social, political, military and economic conditions placed him in a difficult situation – that’s history.

As usual I find my self agreeing with you.
I did put a fair bit of my opinion (reasonably well read that it is!) in that but I have to agree with your more academic assessment.

Neville was still a knobhead though!

Hey,

I do agree with your personal assessment (I’m a huge admirer of Churchill and I don’t particularly find Chamberlain’s egotism or short-sightedness commendable) and I also personally find Munich to be a morally deplorable act, but sometimes I must begrudgingly respect the historical reality of some instances.

I sometimes find Chamberlain’s reputation akin to a political contemporary of his: Canadian R.B. Bennett. Both were faced with momentous Herculean challenges – ones that were historically massive – and while both tried to navigate these previously uncharted waters with good intentions, both were unsuccessful and both were vilified by their contemporaries and some historians in the immediate preceding years. While I don’t share the same personal disdain for Bennett as Chamberlain (Bennett actually tried to personally intervene in the economic hardships of many Canadians) I do feel that both may need some revaluation (Bennett is currently) in light of their unique circumstances.

m1.

I agree re Nev. He was a knob but with Europe still in shock from the slaughter of the Great War his decisions really mirrored public opinion. Churchill's views, although right, would have appeared hawkish in the extreme. Especially the reception of his ideas could not of escaped his tainted reputation gained after the Dardanelles plan, better known as Gallipoli.
His public credibility in the 1930’s was low because of his history. Winny fucked up quite a bit, but luckily for the UK, he learned a lot by his numerous mistakes by 1940.

[IcedCap]

maybe I'm just bias being a Brummie but I agree that Neville Chamberlain's had an unfair rap.
Perhaps he really did trust Hitler and wasn't just giving Britain time to prepare for a war that he thought was inevitable but I find the argument that if he'd gone to war in 38 the outcome would've been different very flawed. Sure enough the German forces wouldn't have been as well equipped or as well prepared a year earlier but its a stretch to believe that the war machine that stormed across Europe in 39/40 would've been stopped less than 12 months earlier.
Finally it really galls me when people call Chamberlain a coward, yeah if Hitler had challenged him to a personal brawl then fair enough he'd be a coward but we're talking about a war here that eventually killed 50,000,000 people, I can well understand why he would've wanted to avoid that.